Corexit ® : Safer than dish soap
Corexit 9500 is the chemical dispersant used by British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf Oil Spill. The Nalco scientist maintains it's safer than household dish soap, less toxic than ice cream. Report from KTRK, Houston (5.27.10)
As more oil workers fall sick with the increased use of chemical dispersants the contrast with how BP and the company which makes the dispersant being used could not be more stark.
I'm not a chemist so I can't vouch for the veracity of the claim made that Corexit is safer than dish soap. Perhaps it is for fish and sea life. However, I've rarely washed my dishes while wearing protective gloves, respiratory masks, and eye protection as Nalco (the company that makes it) requires for those handling or around the substance. And the British don't seem to think much of the stuff, having banned it for use in the North Sea. Something about causing headaches, vomiting and reproductive issues.
In the clip above a Nalco scientist maintains the safety of the product (noting while wearing the protective gear). And in fact on their website Nalco takes great pains to make the toxic shit stuff sound as innocuous as possible:
Corexit contains six primary ingredients. Examples of everyday products with specific ingredients in common with COREXIT 9500 include:
• One ingredient is used as a wetting agent in dry gelatin, beverage mixtures, and fruit juice drinks.
• A second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo.
• A third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid.
• A fourth ingredient is found extensively in cosmetics and is also used as a surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents used in food contact.
• A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for "soap scum" removal.
• A sixth ingredient is used in hand creams and lotions, odorless paints and stain blockers.
Although there are less toxic dispersants available they aren't being used because of the unprecedented volumes used in the Gulf spill, now said to be well over 1,000,000 gallons.
have their own companies making virtually identical formulas.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://i.pcp001.com/g/similac1.jpg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.eelhouse.co.uk/aaaphotopieeels2.jpg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ingredients in the oil that they extract (Gasoline) from could be the cause of the side affects. Has anyone been around a gasoline spill and gotten a headache? I know I have.
the effects of crude oil vapors and dispersants. Dispersants contain a few ingredients and crude oil hundreds of chemical components. We know there are safer and more effective dispersants because the companies that make them tell us they are. Yet, oddly, when you consult the MSDS sheets for all these different products they all have exactly the same PPE requirements and exposure limits. The data sheets do not disclose proprietary formulations so there are presumably some differences. Corexit was approved by the EPA as were their competitors.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Crude oil contains substantial amounts of several volatile compounds that have exposures symptoms identical to those reported by the cleanup workers. Toluene especially -- it's the thing that makes people who sniff glue high. Terrible stuff.
cancer causing benzene. I visited a plant where they make Bondo back in the eighties and I swear everybody I met in that plant was higher than a kite. Good ole toluene and xylene.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Yup. I highlighted toluene because the cultural connotations of sniffing glue helped me get my point across.
could Darth Cheney inject a shot of it intravenously to prove it's 'safe'? Or how about a FOX News volunteer?
you get a headache from huffing gas, because of the ethanol ... not because of the oil.
Huffing gasoline has given you a headache since long before they started using ethanol as an oxygenator. Cyclic hydrocarbons such as toluene will give you a nasty headache or a high in much lower concentrations than are present in gasoline.
How are your brain cells working, all two of them?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
accuse me of being a drug addict because I call bs on your claim that oil and water give you a headache but this Corexit stuff is totally fine.
no, I'm not a drug addict and no I'm not a gas huffer, but you're obviously a corporate tool.
so how much does BP pay you to troll these liberal sites and try to prevent the nation from wanting to riot on your executives and seize your assets, Petey?
You made an obviously false and ridiculous statement about the composition and health effects of gasoline. Stop whining about getting called on it.
Having stripped a lot of wax in the past, I can tell you that the active ingredient in the stripper is the active ingredient in window washing fluid, just a lot more concentrated. You don't want to let stripping fluid sit on your skin for very long, but, as long as you don't ingest any Windex, it won't eat away at any of your body parts.
And here's a challenge to anyone who doubts that it's the same ingredient: Dump a bottle of Windex on your waxed kitchen floor, let it sit for 10 or 15 minutes, then wipe it up with a rag. Your wax will be ruined.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
that would have much more frightening MSDS sheets if they were required for consumer products. I always found that interesting.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
This is so... and I've never seen an MSDS, for anything, that didn't suggest gloves and eye protection. And this isn't really surprising -- 100% eye protection is now standard for all industrial activities, and gloves for anything that doesn't involve rotating machinery.
An interesting example is cyanoacrylate (superglue). The MSDS warns not to wear cotton because the exothermic reaction causes burns. You never see that warning when you buy a tube at the hardware store.
I didn't know that... guess I should read the MSDS for it more carefully before I use it again.
then why did BP ban it?
While I've seen a few poorly documented reports of BP either not providing or actively discouraging the use of respirators, I have seen nothing that suggests they have prevented anyone from using gloves or eye protection. Got links?
amused me. I just took it home from the lab sometimes if I needed some.
Grabbed it's MSDS for giggles here.
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Except for an added fragrance and sometimes some mineral oil, that's what's in it. It's a great solvent! I don't wear nail polish as much as I used to though. =P
I hear they put antifreeze in ice cream...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Ben & Jerry's Roadkill flavor.
Rocky Road?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Corexit does. Debate over.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
...if you work in a kitchen and you buy detergent by the case, you get an MSDS document in the case for your folder.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I mentioned dish soap, just like the Nalco spokesman.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
...a bottle of dish-washing detergent, a.k.a. dish soap.
I drink pop her in Michigan. You might drink soda in the northeast, or a Coke (even if it's Fanta Orange) in the South.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvCTaccEkMI
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...that was gonna be an RC Cola ad, ysb. I'm so disappointed now. So, so disappointed....
:P
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbkoeJ7BVsI
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://tdistler.com/media/images/StartColaEar...
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
That's hilarious...In a very disturbing way!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
...hmmmm ?
but this is my fav:
http://blog.creativityden.com/wp-content/uplo...
(Very disappointed that its not real ...)
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV6EaqS1F2I
The truth will set you free but can you handle the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSt8I3pt6s
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
..there was a regular customer- a former Texan- who always complained that we didn't carry RC. It's kind of rare around here- you can find 2 liter bottles at a few gas stations and bodegas, but not at any of the chain grocery stores.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
http://bagladyemporium.com/BLU/uploads/Main/M...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2574/413276489...
http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/139/458/867/d...
http://cdn1.ioffer.com/img/item/143/895/663/A...
http://bellybuzz.squarespace.com/storage/imag...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Hedley ...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoM-ZC7uNnc&fe...
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
Actually she deserves to be more than a Mel Brooks punchline.
She was a German actress, married an industrialist, met Hitler at one of their dinner parties (didn't like him, too pompous), came to Hollywood, made one of my favorite movies, My Favorite Brunette with Bob Hope, and she was was instrumental in the development of sonar and her invention was patented and allowed her to retire from acting early.
http://www.rfid-weblog.com/50226711/hedy_lama...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
War effort a few years ago ...amazing story. Sonar saved the asses of the Navy in the North Atlantic (even tho the Brits were a little slow in sharing ... )
Hope:
I still think this is an amazing performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKgUq5dziEk
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
when Vernors exists?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Have you ever wondered why we wash our clothes in detergent but wash our hands in soap? What’s the difference? Soap has molecules that surround the dirt and oil on your hands and then they get washed away with water. Detergent is soap plus things called builders that reduce the hardness of the water.
The truth will set you free but can you handle the truth?
I believe soaps contain sodium tallowate; detergents do not.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Soaps are just a fat reacted with a basic salt, such as the sodium and potassium hydroxides in lye. You can make soap from an enormous variety of different source materials.
Been awhile since I learned that, and I haven't had need for the info recently.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
has an MSDS data sheet. Consumer products companies aren't required to supply them.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Here's the link to the MSDS for Joy Dishwashing Liquid: http://www.fsafood.com/msds/vault/000/000601.pdf
That took me 15 seconds on Google. MSDSes are required for all chemicals used in industry, period.
The same product packaged for consumer use requires no accompanying MSDS sheet although they can be obtained on line generally. You must have an MSDS sheet for Whiteout in an office but not at home. At least where I reside.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
That's the law in the US. My point was that the fact that Corexit 9500 has a MSDS indicates precisely nothing about its toxicity. The text of the MSDS is the important part.
Not even LD 50 or ED 50? I'll have to check the local book.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Margaret said the fact that it has an MSDS and dish soap doesn't should be the end of the argument. My point is that contention is bollocks -- it's the contents of the MSDS that matters.
These threads are sometimes a little difficult to follow. My bad.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqkeemU7fyk
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Try one of mine. I think you'll agree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xay6J9Jb0lE&fe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI25DmCoWvI
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
But is highly toxic and corrosive. Trust me, you don't want even a 10 percent solution of phenol anywhere near you or your air or water. Nalco's bullsh*t is disingenuous at best and dangerously deceptive at worst.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
vinaigrette. Just don't make it with glacial acetic acid.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
As their sources and concentrations. Hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are atomically very, VERY similar. What would you rather have to eat? A piece of cake or some nice gasoline?
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
are shipped as concentrate. Customers don't really like paying to ship water or whatever dilutant is used.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
UK and Europe (with their minimal transport costs) you can buy hundreds of bottled fruit squashes (Ribena and orange drink), just add water to make up your soft drink, typically the concentrated 'fruit' and sugar concentrates are added as a 10% top up to water.
Here in the US, esp in the mid west, you cannot find these concentrates (apart from rare lime cordials for adding to liquor/cocktails), US truckers seem to love transporting water, Us consumers seem to love buying water plus trace flavourings and of course HFCS.
buy nothing but concentrates. I very much doubt transportation costs are cheaper in Europe. Bought any gas there lately?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
In the concentrated drinks they purchase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_%28drink%29
I just LOOOOVVVEE me some Robinsons Apple and Black Current squash mixed with fizzy water...
http://www.trademagazin.hu/uploads/media/2009...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That sounds like the product sold as frozen concentrate in the US. It's available here in WA state.
Passion fruit, soursop, guava, mango, etc. They're great to mix with water and drink straight. No added sugar is a definite plus.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
http://www.worldfiner.com/images/1090539188-L...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Cortex is being dumped into the water. Where it might be concentrated at high levels in the bottle, it diperses to low percentages in no time once it hits the water.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
If they're not paying you, you're getting ripped off.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
This is about concentrates. I wouldn't argue that every chemical we use in everyday life is safe in it's concentrated form. Some are. Some aren't safe, no matter what the concentration (okay, that's hyperbolic, because spread a miniscule amount of plutonium on the surface of a star, and it ain't dangerous...it's all relative), where a third compound may be safe when it's 50% of a solution mixed with water.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Ammonia and Chlorine bleach -Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) is a poisonous gas
The truth will set you free but can you handle the truth?
I remember when you taught us that in first grade.
Jesus, you must be about 200 years-old now!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
to fifth grade!
Are you going to take physics next year?
The truth will set you free but can you handle the truth?
But that doesn't mean that the resulting mixture when mixed with crude oil is safe. It might even make oil free toxic components more easily.
for all dispersants. They increase surface area by breaking oil into tiny droplets. Increased surface area means higher evaporation rates for light ends in the oil.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
recipe for a perfect hurricane fire storm.
That seems... unlikely. There's not enough oil out there to produce a flammable concentration during a hurricane.
You are correct about the higher evaporation rates -- I hadn't really thought of that. The most toxic fractions of crude oil are among the most volatile as well.
Higher surface area also means more area for oil-eating bacteria (of which there are many, many species) to attack, speeding bio-degradation of the oil.
Are you sure you're not confusing surface area with surface tension?
Yes -- the oil-eating bacteria can't live in the oil; rate of bacterial degradation is proportional to surface area.
But the dispersant is a surfactant which reduces the surface tension between the water and the oil. That’s why it sinks. I don’t see how it affects the surface area at all.
detergent literally pull an oil drop apart. Ask yourself which has a greater surface area a ball with a volume of one cubic meter or two balls each with a volume of half a cubic meter. The smaller the droplets the greater the surface area.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Makes sense. Thx.
dispersants appreciates that fact. You can get a flash of volatiles when spray dispersant on crude and I wouldn't be surprised if that was what was making the workers sick. It does beg the question about whether or not they're wearing the right respirators or taking them off when no one is looking. They're not terribly comfortable to wear at the best of times and when you wear one all day your chest hurts from sucking air through the cartridges.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
.
I have yet to see anyone of them...
... DRINK IT UP, THEN!
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
Hey, if BP says it's harmless who are we to question them. They've been so honest up to this point.
is intended to be a factual statement
Is too keep so much goo from hitting the shore. It remains in the environment. Corexit is just going to keep the crud out of the public eye and away from the debate about offshore drilling. It's PR, plain and simple.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
it's about the money. BP is using this dispersant to reduce their liability for coastal cleanup. What do they care if the crude oil is being dissolved into ocean waters in a toxic, invisible cloud that will slowly make its way into the Gulf Stream. I don't know all I should about ocean currents, but my bet is that we'll be tracking the progress of this toxic cr@p around the world's oceans for years, but BP won't care because they can't be billed for the cleanup.
The main method of eliminating oil is through evaporation of light ends and biological action. Increasing the surface area as surfactants do enhances both effects. Dispersants do not work well on the heavier components but since they are heavier they sink into the water column. I'd much rather have those components floating below the epipelagic zone where they'd do the most damage.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
At this point I would rather all the oil be at the surface. I would like to see concentric circles surrounding the current slicks where it can be contained and skimmed. The plumes are an indication that it is not sinking. The oil suspended in the mesopelagic zone is a nightmare.
but a great deal more is in the bathypelagic zone and that is the tail end of the ecosystem.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If it has sunk that deep it would be good (much better than at the surface). I’m not sure samples have been taken at all depths. But the plumes being discovered are all 10-3000 feet below the surface – and holding. It may very well be that they will break up, but they haven’t yet. The existing concentrations are still deadly.
if the oil down there took centuries to ultimately disappear.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
There are many species of oil eating microbes in the GoM. They will eat all the oil that does not reach shore in a few years at most.
This is not all sunshine and roses -- some of those bacteria are pathogenic and this event will likely alter the bacterial ecosystem of the GoM into the far future. We don't know enough about how bacteria influence the visible fraction of the ecosystem well enough to predict what will happen.
Oil eating bacteria:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/bacteria-0...
with a little GM they might be made more efficient.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Notice that in the beaker with Corexit, the entire water column is affected. In the beaker without, the oil sits at the top, waiting to be skimmed.
It looks like they have created an emulsion. That may not sink.
The oil is more toxic. If the objective is to dilute one harmful chemical with another, I’m actually for it. Both will kill. Together they kill less.
And this isn’t the problem I have with the usage. It’s the effect of the amounts they are using. The spill is huge. They have effectively hidden the oil without dispersing it.
Clarification:
When the detergent is spread on an existing oil slick, the damage is already done. The detergent helps to mitigate the damage by preventing further spreading. Not only is this not working (plumes), they are spreading this stuff all over the Gulf – even where the oil is not yet present. They are doing it to prevent the oil from showing up and looking bad in pictures. A smaller surface slick is easier to sell.
My feeling is that the overspray is being done for PR purposes – not environmental. Environmentally, they are making it worse.
The hardest components of oil to clean up are the heavy ones. They can take decades to breakdown and it's much better that they be dropped deep into the water column than wind up in fragile ecologies.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I should have said "Before the detergent is spread on an existing oil slick..."
.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The ingredients by themselves may be sorta safe. . . combined, as in the dispersant, could be a different matter, altogether.
not 9500.
good interview on CBC Radio this morning:
http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/2010/05/ma...
Life After an Environmental Disaster - What Can the People of Louisianna Learn from the Exxon Valdez?
As a young woman, marine biologist Ricki Ott fell in love with the remote community of Cordova, on Prince William sound in Alaska. At the age of twenty nine, with a PhD in Marine Toxicology in hand, she left her home in Wisconsin, with plans of becoming a Commercial Fisher . Living in one of the most beautiful places on earth. Doing what she loved.
For Rikki Ott, everything must have seemed just about perfect.
But on one fateful day in 1989, of course, everything changed. That was the day of the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill. At the time, it was the most horrendous environmental catastrophe in American history. And it set Rikki Ott's life on a different path.
From that day until this, she has fought tirelessly for justice for the people and the environment of her small town.
More recently , she has just returned from three weeks visiting Louisianna and Alabama. She's been speaking with some of the people who for generations have made their livelihood from the bountiful waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Rikki Ott is now on her way back to Alaska. She joined us now from our studio in Vancouver.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
So adding a few drops to my aquarium is no problem?
excellent question.
Let's ask Bill Nye.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
True or not , I heard or read somewhere that BP actually benefits financially by using the crap they have been , that it's made by BP or one of it's subsidiaries which is why they insist on using it . Regardless , this stuff is not even touching but a tiny fraction of the oil that's already come out of that well .They really did it good this time .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/shauntanner/...
What bugs me is that the EPA told them to stop using it and they said "FU" to the EPA.
Not cool.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The EPA changes as it changes administrative hands.
Why not pour Coca-Cola in the ocean?
It's how we cleaned soap scum off our shower walls in boot camp.
Drove our sergeants crazy they could never find any soap scum to mark us off for...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/detergents.htm
Detergents can have poisonous effects in all types of aquatic life if they are present in sufficient quantities, and this includes the biodegradable detergents. All detergents destroy the external mucus layers that protect the fish from bacteria and parasites; plus they can cause severe damage to the gills. Most fish will die when detergent concentrations approach 15 parts per million. Detergent concentrations as low as 5 ppm will kill fish eggs. Surfactant detergents are implicated in decreasing the breeding ability of aquatic organisms.
Detergents also add another problem for aquatic life by lowering the surface tension of the water. Organic chemicals such as pesticides and phenols are then much more easily absorbed by the fish. A detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb double the amount of chemicals they would normally absorb, although that concentration itself is not high enough to affect fish directly.
Phosphates in detergents can lead to freshwater algal blooms that releases toxins and deplete oxygen in waterways. When the algae decompose, they use up the oxygen available for aquatic life.
The main contributors to the toxicity of detergents were the sodium silicate solution and the surfactants-with the remainder of the components contributing very little to detergent toxicity. The potential for acute aquatic toxic effects due to the release of secondary or tertiary sewage effluents containing the breakdown products of laundry detergents may frequently be low. However, untreated or primary treated effluents containing detergents may pose a problem. Chronic and/or other sublethal effects that were not examined in this study may also pose a problem.
Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/detergents.ht...
millions of gallons of detergents we've flushed into the ecosystem?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The flip answer is 'way too damn many'. I wonder how much gets washed down the Mississippi in an average year... I'd be willing to bet money that it's more than BP has added to the Gulf.
a few days ago and it was not well received.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Not surprising -- much easier to be mad at BP (and their conduct in this matter has covered the range from appalling to criminal) than to consider the daily habits of everyone living in the Mississippi watershed.
about the nitrates.
Detergents save land animals and birds in the form of shampoo.
If only we could seed the massive drifting plumes with oil loving bacteria. That would keep all of us happy while we work the problem. The bacteria would multiply until they consume the oil plumes in a matter of weeks. We could put the bacteria to work until the leak is stopped. then the bacteria will stop.
Anyone want to be covered with a thin film of oil loving bacteria?
No?
Don't panic, but you already are! BOO! :) did i scare you?
So everyone just has to go swimming in the gulf until this thing clears up, and let the bacteria on our skin lap up the spilled oil.
Does anyone have a million barrels of oil-eating bacteria that the richest corporation in the world wants to give you money for?
...you there in the corner?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
There are lots of oil-loving bacteria in the GoM, and they are on the case. However, they're not all good. Some of them are pathogenic and the shift in the microbial ecosystem of the GoM is likely to be long term. Effects unknown.
Ya, i guess we won't know what eats the oil for a while. Could be that a nasty creaping slime of some kind comes washing up onto the shore in a few months.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Probably nothing so dramatic -- that's a special sort of bacterial trick and likely would have happened before. But something subtle and difficult to predict? Yes.
look, its a NALCO promotional video from a couple years ago before this crap hit the fan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TGFT6PndTg
just in case you missed it, here's some screenshots of NALCO employees wearing giant rubber gloves and respirators and using huge sticks to handle the product they claim is "just as safe as dish soap"
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/djbur...
lying liars.
"less toxic than ice cream." Report from KTRK, Houston (5.27.10)
Less toxic, eh? I dare this fuckwit to guzzle down a gallon of their "harmless" potion to test this theory.
See you in the morgue, dummy.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
Notice that in the beaker with Corexit, the entire water column is affected. In the beaker without, the oil sits at the top, waiting to be skimmed.
True.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
these assholes should all be in jail.
the entire BP personhood.
Time to break out the rubber gloves to wash the dishes.
I downloaded the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for this stuff. The MSDS lists the following:
Hazardous Substance(s) CAS NO % (w/w)
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light 64742-47-8 10.0 - 30.0
Propylene Glycol 57-55-6 1.0 - 5.0
Organic sulfonic acid salt Proprietary 10.0 - 30.0
*In other words, the hazardous substance composition can range from (10+1+10) 21% to (30+5+30) 65% of the product total weight. Also on the MSDS:
WARNING
Combustible.
Keep away from heat.
Keep away from sources of ignition - No smoking.
Keep container tightly closed.
Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing.
Do not take internally.
Avoid breathing vapor.
Use with adequate ventilation.
In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice.
After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of soap and water.
Wear suitable protective clothing.
* I will post more as I research.
dateach
... may or may not be harmless. Since they failed to name them, we only have their word for it.
Even if we take them at their word, that doesn't mean that, when combined, the chemicals don't create something toxic.
In the 1930's, a company building lighter-than-air ships used chemically-treated fabric for the skin of the airships. Chemicals which, individually, were relatively harmless. A few years later, these same chemicals were used as "primary ingredients" to create rocket fuel.
FYI, one of the airships with the chemically-treated skin was called the Hindenburg.
The Mythbusters did a very convincing demonstration that the skin composition contributed relatively little to the fire compared to the hydrogen.
... on the Hindenburg (I don't remember the title), there's a man in Germany who collects Hindenburg memorabilia. His collection includes fabric from the skin which survived the fire.
Tests confirmed the chemical composition of the ingredients used to treat the material.
I haven't seen the Mythbusters report. Did it say how the hydrogen bags caught fire? Did they blow-up first, or was there something else burning which triggered the explosion?
"...well over a 1,000,000 gallons," scarce!?! Even on C&L, we aren't getting accurate information!
If we accept BP's egregiously misleading estimate of '5,000 barrels' a day, that means that at least 8,190,000 gallons of oil are floating in the gulf, and befouling our coastlines.
However, estimates of the amount of oil spewing out of this blown well go as high as 100,000 barrels of oil a day!! If this much oil is leaking, the gulf now has over 163,000,000 gallons of crude fouling the water and threatening our coastlines!
All of the sophomoric mental masturbation herein above about the relative safety of the chemicals BP is using to 'address' this disaster won't change the fundamental reality of our species' mindless, relentless self-immolation.
too much knowledge, too little wisdom.
And even Noah got a reprieve after 40 days and 40 nights. We’re not so lucky.
did you mean too complex for you to follow? Sounds like it to me. Give your noble self another pat on the back.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
BP's estimates are laughably low, but 100,000 bpd is laughably high. The Oil Drum consensus is 20-30,000 bpd, which is reasonable given all data available.
From last week:
NY Times
Thank you for clarifying that your subordinate clause is rather like a misplaced modifier...
Yet another pretentious slacktivist to add to my ignore list.
And, it's SOPHOMORIC, wee mannie.
Corexit contains six primary ingredients. Examples of everyday products with specific ingredients in common with COREXIT 9500 include:
* One ingredient is used as a wetting agent in dry gelatin, beverage mixtures, and fruit juice drinks.
* A second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo.
* A third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid.
* A fourth ingredient is found extensively in cosmetics and is also used as a surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents used in food contact.
* A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for "soap scum" removal.
* A sixth ingredient is used in hand creams and lotions, odorless paints and stain blockers.
**************************************************************
Give. Me. A. Break.
Any chemical engineer would tell you that just because several of the individual ingredients used to manufacture this dispersal agent are also separately used to manufacture various common household products (including some which are ingested as food items), this does not necessarily mean that any product which contains one or more of these chemicals could not possibly be harmful! That's a little too much like the recent right-wing claims that this oil leak isn't really worth worrying about because petroleum is a naturally-produced compound, even though nature produces plenty of chemical compounds which can be harmful to both human life and other forms of life even in small quantities -- not to mention others which are safe in moderate amounts yet toxic in excess quantities. Sometimes all it takes is the addition of one ingredient to turn something safe into something dangerous (as an example, a H2O water molecule only needs one atom of sulfur and three additional atoms of oxygen to become H2SO4 -- sulfuric acid). In any event, just because the company which manufactures a product claims that it's safe, that doesn't automatically make it so...just ask the victims of Thalidomide, or Agent Orange.)
The company which manufactures this dispersal agent knows all this very well -- if they don't, they should never have been allowed to exist as a company in the first place, never mind stay in business -- so trotting out all this tripe in order to make it seem like their product is utterly incapable of causing harm is rather conveniently evasive to say the least!
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
Well, I'm no chemical engineer, but from my own experience, just because something is a household product doesn't mean it's safe.
Here's a pretty good sheet on propylene glycol.
And cosmetics are notoriously under-regulated as far as containing harmful chemicals such as endocrine disruptors and known carcinogens.
"When profit comes up against morality, it's rare that profit loses."~Shirley Chisholm
I have this list of products I tell friends not to use!
The hard part is explaining exposure over time. Just touching something once, for household things, isn't going to make you fall over dead or get cancer and die in 5 days.
Limiting exposure to certain chemicals is a very good thing. Moreso if you have a predisposition to things like endocrine disruption for some of them, exactly.
Some chems it depends on how you are exposed. You can wash your hands in some, but inhaling the fumes of the same chem is bad.
Other chemicals like solvents, have other issues.
And yes, our "beauty products" are woefully under-regulated in the US compared to the EU.
IMHO everyone living in today's world should know more chemistry. Useful stuff.
On Corexit, this
* A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for "soap scum" removal.
Made me blink. Most of those guys are not good to be around.
/ChemE. that also worked in med. research
then I'd like to see a Nalco exec drink a half gallon of it.
TB. Stands for Teabaggers but it might as well stand for Totally Brainless.After all the Debate on Healthcare and all the influence that the Insurance Companies used to stop Reform, and now the BP.
crisis they still have not been able to connect Two rather Large
dots truly Pathetic!
Yesterday, TONY THE LYING SACK OF S**T, BP CEO, was on CNN telling us all that there is no underwater plume, that his "scientists" found nothing toxic in COREXANT, and that sick clean up worker must have just eaten something that gave them food poisoning! By the way, Great Britain refuses to allow Corexant to be used, because it is too toxic! So do many other countries. We are supposed to swallow that S*it and move on....nothing to see there..
Meanwhile, Jaques Coustou's grandson and other environmental researchers have proven that the dispersant is highly toxic and is causing huge underwater plumes that are killing countless fish and marine wildlife! This is a crime against humanity, as well as a crime against nature and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including those involved in any other cover-up, such as the Republican deniers and even EPA, OSHA, Salazar and any other Obama Administration officials who participate in minimizing the truth about the extent of this catastrophe!
We should all be outraged and calling for their heads! I think BP's Tony should take a swim in the plumes he denies, and then he should be forced to work as a clean up worker with no protective gear for a few days. See if he has any respiratory problems
I hope that the Republicans are really really proud of all the deregulation they have pushed through since Regan: We can thank them for the dot com bomb, the real estate collapse, the wall street bailouts and economy collapse, all the toxins that are now allowed in our food, all the toxic chemicals that are making us one of the sickest countries on hearth, exorbitant health care costs for insurance and drugs and medical care, global warming and climate change caused by CO2 emissions, failure to increase fuel efficiency standards, thus causing us to be completely dependent on foreign oil, cutting budgets for alternative energy research and production, gutting budgets for regulators so they can't possibly enforce the regulations that still exist, and oh yeah, the Exxon Valdez and BP oil disasters! Should we send them all a big thank you note in November????? Vote out every Republican, conserv-a-dem and tea partier currently holding office.
Comments are closed on this entry