Remember all those dispersants we dumped in the Gulf? Now we are learning what is in them:
In response, the E.P.A. published the full chemical composition of Coexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 and nearly a year later, released an aggregate list of 57 chemical components found in the 14 dispersants, although they provided no information about which chemicals were found in which dispersants, citing an obligation to protect what had been deemed as confidential business information by the manufacturers.
A review has now been published by Earthjustice, in collaboration with Toxipedia, an online toxicology Wiki, of all the scientific literature concerning the potential health impacts of these 57 chemicals. The report finds that “Of the 57 ingredients: 5 chemicals are associated with cancer; 33 are associated with skin irritation from rashes to burns; 33 are linked to eye irritation; 11 are or are suspected of being potential respiratory toxins or irritants; 10 are suspected kidney toxins; 8 are suspected or known to be toxic to aquatic organisms; and 5 are suspected to have a moderate acute toxicity to fish.”
While words like “associated with” or “linked to” may sound weak and unconvincing, the syntax highlights just how little is actually known about these chemicals. For 13 of the dispersant ingredients, no relevant data could be found.
“BP had a particular set of dispersants on hand and no one at the time seemed to know if they were safe, whether they were safer than other dispersants products that could be used or even whether they were safer for people and the environment than oil alone,” said Marianne Engelman Lado, a lawyer with Earthjustice. “BP chose Corexit because it was the dispersant on hand, not because it was the safest. However, regulation of dispersants is so inadequate that BP didn’t have enough information to figure out how it compared with other dispersants or oil alone.”
Not to start the day on a depressing note, but it really is amazing to me just how backwards our decision making is in this nation. I really don’t understand the decision making process that says “We don’t know what is in this shit, but let’s dump it and deal with the aftermath later.” It’s just mindboggling. It’s environmental Russian Roulette. What corporate leaders would make the decision to stockpile lots of a component that contains tons of things about which we basically know nothing? Again, I have no MBA, so I just may not be schooled in the finer Galtian principles, but if I was a CEO, and my staff came to me and said “In case of a spill, we have this stuff called Corexit. We’re not exactly sure what it will do to the environment or people, and we really haven’t spent any time or energy examining that, but we ordered a ton of it produced and have lots sitting around,” my response would not be “AWESOME. ROCK ON! LET’S DO IT.”
In the movie The Corporation
And I feel horrible for the people of the Gulf, but I will be damned if I eat any Gulf seafood knowingly for quite some time.
bkny
but, mr hopey changey said yum and has the backing of the fda and noaa — who are on the case monitoring the poisons and toxins contaminating the food chain.
whitehouse.gov/gulfseafood
barath
And the well is leaking again:
blog.al.com/live/2011/08/scientists_oil_fouling_gulf_co.html
Robert Sneddon
All of the incredibly toxic cancer-causing chemicals in the various dispersants used in the Gulf incident last year are the same chemicals found in many of the bottles under your kitchen sink. About the only difference between Corexit and the shelf-ready cleaners available from your supermarket is that Corexit uses kerosene as a dilutant rather than water or alcohol.
As for absolute levels of contamination consider how many tonnes of those chemicals arrive in the Gulf each day down the Mississippi after being rinsed down millions of sinks as happy housewives finish their daily chores without wearing hazmat protective clothing, gloves, facemasks etc. while working with the concentrated forms of these chemicals.
Mark S.
Oh for fuck’s sake. That is fucking insane. Is there perhaps, just maybe, an overriding public concern that might, a little bit, take precedence over these business secrets?
Oh who am I kidding?
David Hunt
Here’s the catch. Part of the pitch for the use of these toxic wonder-chemicals probably was “these cost less than the ones that are less harsh on the environment.” Corporations are all about creating and exploiting as many externalities as they possibly can.
Now you as a decent human being probably wouldn’t do that anyway, but you don’t get to be CEO of a major corporation by thinking about humanity. You get there by (best case) thinking about how you can put money in the pockets of your shareholders regardless of who you fuck over to do it. The meeting to make this decision probably looked remarkably similar to meeting of the Roman Senate in History of World, Part I.
MikeJ
I wonder what the public reaction would have been had BP been prohibited from using dispersants? Even if the dispersants had been known at the time to be harmful, we would have heard that BP had a hojillion gallons of them sitting around and they would solve the problem right away and the mean old Kenyan stopped them.
Dennis SGMM
These guys could be applying a solution of plutonium particles suspended in DDT. We won’t know because it’s “confidential business information.” WTF?
The “confidential business information” dodge is bullshit. When I worked in aerospace we made use of many exotic (And very expensive) alloys. The list of the components of them, including the proportions of each metal that made them up, were freely available. That the gov would have more of a right to know the components of alloys used for specialized purposes than it would to know the components of the stuff that is sprayed on the water or pumped into the ground in wholesale lots makes me reach for my tinfoil hat.
dpCap
It’s unamerican to question what our corporate overlords are doing in our coastal waters.
Frankensteinbeck
First, these chemicals are not rigorously tested because you’re not supposed to ingest or come into contact with them. Ever. They’re all horribly poisonous, so being merely carcinogenic is a mild concern. Their selling point is that they’re vastly less dangerous than the oil.
And then you go ‘But they’re dumping them into the Gulf!’ Yes. There was an insanely huge petroleum spill in a very public area and chemicals normally used in small amounts were used in huge amounts. What was the alternative? Long-term health studies of chemicals take a lot of time and a lot of money and only so many can be done. Chemicals already labeled ‘Holy crap, don’t even touch this stuff’ are low on the testing list. You use what you have in a disaster.
All of this pales before a fact that is consistently underestimated by people concerned about the environment. The Earth is fucking huge. The Gulf Of Mexico is fucking huge. That is one fucking huge amount of water. And it’s moving, mixing with all the other water on Earth. Between dispersal in 326 quadrillion gallons of water and the way those chemicals constantly decay, odds are good that even an enormous chemical spill like this will simply disappear.
Now, any responsible person does not just blindly trust to that theory. If you’re a responsible government you have the water and the fish tested to make sure all of this worked and there are no contaminants. And you post it on the White House’s web page, and nobody believes you.
Anonymous At Work
I’ve worked with toxicologists and biochemists before. “Associated with” and “linked to” typically means that the use of chemicals causes the problems, but the scientists haven’t firmly proved it as well as figured out the exact mechanism. It’s usually a matter of time.
Comrade Dread
This doesn’t really surprise me.
Our culture idolizes the quick decisive leader who can make a choice fast when everyone else is whining about fact finding.
(see George Bush 2001 – 2006).
Of course, then when it all goes to hell, simply shred documents, obfuscate, and hope the public is more interested in Snookie and has moved on from your colossal fuck up.
Thus risk assessment is an afterthought with a lot of companies. They’re real downers.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
Well, I don’t know, John. I wasn’t there. Were you?
What is with your constant use of the all-inclusive “WE” when talking about specific government actions that cause harm?
WE did not use dispersants.
WE did not cause an oil spill.
WE did not invade Iraq or Afghanistan.
WE did not bail out Wall Street, etc, etc., etc.,…
These acts were taken by very specific people in government and industry. Name them please.
Words have meanings, that is why we use them. Is the never ending use of “WE” some kind of weak ass, subliminal rhetorical thing to disperse the blame for these endless horrific acts?
Kane
Yes, it’s horrible for the people of the Gulf. But the dirty little oily secret in all of this, the one that the talking heads and media fail to mention in their outrage and tears, is that Louisiana sold their souls to the oil companies years ago.
For decades, countless scientists and environmentalists have been waving the red flag on the damage being done to the Gulf Coast and to wetlands by oil compaines and commercial shipping.
Why would a state that provides a wealth of seafood to the world and which has one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth put all of that at risk? In a word; money.
The vast majority of Louisiana residents have been so comfortable with the costs and risks to their environment it’s impossible for a politician to get elected without being in the pocket of big oil. Thus, we suffer from the likes of David Vitter and Mary Landrieu and Bobby Jindal.
Many of these people are the same people who only a couple of years ago were shouting “Drill, Baby, Drill!” The same people who are are looking forward to this summer’s 76th Annual Louisiana Shrimp and Petroleum Oil Festival, with a golf tournament sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, with parades and live music and arts and crafts and a coronation of a Petroleum king and queen. All sponsored by the good people of big oil.
shrimp-petrofest.org/
General Stuck
Godzilla Smoothie
trollhattan
@Robert Sneddon:
Okay big fella, prove it. Name specific the consumer products, by brand, the chemical contents and concentrations, and their usage instructions. Then, evaluate dermal, inhalation and ingestion pathways when used within the guidance and determine the human health and environmental cancer and non-cancer risks. Show your work.
• 2 – Propenoic acid, 2 – methyl – , 1,1’ – (1,2 – ethanediyl) ester,
polymer with 2 – propen – 1 – yl 2 – methyl – 2 – propenoate
• Alcohols, C12-14-secondary, ethoxylated
• Alkanes, C14-30
• Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated
• Benzenesulfonic acid, (1 – methylethyl) -, sodium salt (1:1)
• D – Glucopyranose, oligomeric, C10 – 16 – alkyl glycosides
• Imidazolium compounds, 1 – 2 – (2-carboxyethoxy)ethyl – 1(or 3)
– (2-carboxyethyl) – 4,5 – dihydro – 2 – norcoco alkyl, hydroxides,
disodium salts
• Naphthalenesulfonic acid, methyl-, sodium salt (1:1)
• Poly(oxy – 1,2 – ethanediyl), .alpha.- (9Z)- 1 – oxo – 9 – octadecen
– 1 – yl – .omega.- hydroxy-
• Poly(oxy – 1,2 – ethanediyl), .alpha. – hydro – .omega. – (9Z) – 1 –
oxo – 9 – octadecen – 1 – yl]oxy] -, ether with D-glucitol (6:1)
• Poly(oxy – 1,2 – ethanediyl), .alpha. – hydro – .omega. – hydroxy –
, ether with 1,2,3 -propanetriol (9Z) – 9 – octadecenoate
• Poly(oxy – 1,2 – ethanediyl), .alpha. – hydro – .omega. – hydroxy –
, mono – C8 – 10 – alkyl ethers, phosphates
• Poly(oxy – 1,2 – ethanediyl), .alpha. – undecyl – .omega.- hydroxy –
Once you’ve done that, perform similar exposure assessments for human and biota receptors in the Gulf and Gulf regtion based on the quantities of dispersants released to the surface and subsurface. As part of your work, evaluate the chemical byproducts resulting from the chemical interactions of the dispersants and the oil and gas, and sea water.
Please get back to us once you’ve done so, perhaps then you can run that victory lap.
wenchacha
What any intelligent teenager knows: it’s always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
This is obviously why the EPA needs to be abolished, goddamned green fascist commie pinko America-hating business killing bastards.
Besides, what do scientists know anyways? Hivemind, insulated assholes, thinking that we can actually hurt the planet like with Global Warming. Everyone knows they all lie, look at the polling! You can’t argue with a majority of the people who just know that consensus amongst Scientists means they’re ALL LYING AND COVERING THEIR ASSES! Majority rules, motherfuckers!!
de stijl
You go to oil spills with the dispersants you have, not the dispersants you wish you had.
Robert Sneddon
@trollhattan: “Name specific the consumer products, by brand, the chemical contents and concentrations, and their usage instructions.”
Can’t do that, sorry. The chemical formulation of Mister Sheen is proprietary and judged to be commercially sensitive information. You’d need to get a FoI judgement in court to get the information out of the makers.
Corexit is basically a detergent mixture — it breaks up crude oil into very small droplets using long-tail hygroscopic molecules the same way Liquid Elbow gets kitchen grease off a work surface and Fairy Liquid gets fat off a dinnerplate. It uses the same chemicals for the same purposes and it has the same effects on sea and river life that the millions of gallons of Walmart’s own brand detergents flushed down the drains and into the sea do, except that Corexit is only applied when there’s been a big oil spill or a leak and the household formulations are being dumped into the environment continuously.
When you see a press release from a group calling itself “Earthjustice” you might want to consider they have an axe to grind.
Interrobang
Can’t do that, sorry. The chemical formulation of Mister Sheen is proprietary and judged to be commercially sensitive information.
Bullshit. The MSDS, with CAS numbers of constituents for easy reference (there are lots of databases of CAS numbers available for your perusal) is right here. Speaking as someone who spent a couple of years tracking MSDSs down for a living, Reckitt Benckiser is actually excellent about releasing information. Your move, douchebag.
Also, just for curiosity’s sake, if we’re talking about products going into the Gulf of Mexico, why in hell did you just refer to a product sold only in Australia?
Tom in TN
Sorry Interrobang and trollhattan, Robert Sneddon is right. Most of those intimidatingly-named chemicals are simple detergents, not much different from what you use to wash your clothes or dishes.
Pour some laundry detergent directly on your arm and leave it there for an hour. I guarantee you’ll get at least a rash from it. The behavior of a pure compound directly on your skin is rather different from the same compound diluted to 10 parts per million in sea water. So the fact that some of these compounds are capable of causing problems at high exposure levels isn’t terribly meaningful.
Water will kill you if you drink enough of it, but we generally don’t consider it a toxic compound. The entire universe is made up of chemicals, and every single one of them will kill you in the right circumstances.
Toxicity is all about dosage and exposure time. Unfortunately, that is too nuanced for some, and it requires knowledge of toxicology to make sense of it. It’s much easier to make big headlines to scare the crap out of people.
Julia Grey
The reason the oil companies do not know about the potential effects of their dispersants and the other chemicals that they use is because they DO NOT WANT to know.
Knowing, having incriminating memos in the files, leads to civil and criminal charges. If they know, they cannot use plausible deniability.
Robert Sneddon
@Interrobang: Mister Sheen is sold in other countries too but I was thinking of Mister Muscle and mistyped.
mrmuscleonline.co.uk/
I dug out the Corexit 9500 MSDS to have a look at it.
lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
The 9500 formulation is similar to the other versions of Corexit, some of which are more effective on rocky shores than open-sea formulations which were the most-often used during last year’s Gulf spill especially during surface spraying operations. There is some info about how it affects invertebrates in there in Section 13; about 20-35ml per litre for two sample shellfish species producing LD50 over 48 hours. That’s about 2% to 3.5% concentration in seawater which is way high given its rate of dispersion.
Most of the Corexit MSDS summary statments in Section 15 say handle with care when in concentrated form as it is an eye irritant etc. but its environmental impact in diluted form (i.e. in use) is pretty minimal.
Disgruntled Lurker
“Of the 57 ingredients: 5 chemicals are associated with cancer; 33 are associated with skin irritation from rashes to burns; 33 are linked to eye irritation; 11 are or are suspected of being potential respiratory toxins or irritants; 10 are suspected kidney toxins; 8 are suspected or known to be toxic to aquatic organisms; and 5 are suspected to have a moderate acute toxicity to fish.”
Meh. This stuff actually sounds rather tame.
If you have to wear gloves while using it, shouldn’t breathe the fumes, shouldn’t get it in your eyes, or if it will catch on fire, the MSDS is going to make it sound like its Napalm.
Not saying that I like the idea of pouring chemicals into the gulf of Mexico, but this stuff doesn’t sound like its going to kill you once its diluted to a billion to one.
/not an expert
Tom in TN
@Julia Grey: Toxicology testing on all these dispersants has been extensive over the last 30 years. It’s all readily available in the scientific literature. Nobody is hiding anything.
There have been entire books written about dispersants.
plaqto451
@disgruntledlurker,sure a billion to one dilution sounds harmless but these chemicals typically concentrate as they move up through the food chain.
catmandoodo
Ambrose Bierce nailed it in his “Devil’s Dictionary”–
Corporation: An ingenious device for insuring personal profit without personal responsibility
Conservative: A person so enamored of the current set of evils that he strives to keep them
Cynic: A person who, despite all inducements to the contrary, insists on seeing things the way they are rather than the way he should see them
and that’s only the c’s
kuvasz
@trollhattan:
Come on dude, do your own homework. Most are emuslifiers, surfactants, or antistats which you will find in household detergents, liquid hand soaps, and fabric softners….and the issue is DOSAGE.
All you need to do is cross reference the CAS# with toxicological data and you have your answer. You’ll likely find the data referenced in an Aldrich MSDS Catalog. However, we both know that you are asking for some data the government does not normally demand from chemical producers, so your request is pretty much a useless Internet dare that you know is unanswerable.
As far as how nasty these chemicals are to the environment and to biological systems the dosage level is the critical factor. If one is going to start out the discussion by calling something “carcinogenic” one ought to recognize that formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, is found to be present in broccoli at detectable levels via GC/MS. By law, broccoli would be banned if it fell under the Delany Clause.
A guy named Bruce Ames virtually invented the mutagenic testing protocol; from which the Ames Test is named. Yet, even Ames cautioned about throwing words around like mutagenic or carcinogenic based upon studies carried out with absurd dosage levels of the studied chemicals. I’m not an apologist for the chemical industry, far indeed from it, and in fact did my masters and dissertation on mutagenity studies of industrial chemicals along with the design of safer alternatives. People ought to realize how convoluted the situation is with this.
For instance, as I mentioned, the common vegetable broccoli has detectable levels of formaldehyde via GC/MS, levels which were they contained in a food additive, such as a dye or preservative would be banned by Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938; “the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals.”
So what is the point of banning food dyes or other additives because of the presence of detectable levels of carcinogens while the natural vegetable product will hurt you worse?
The critical point is that when carcinogens were banned from the food supply the levels human could detect 70 years ago were in the parts-per-thousand; now we can detect the same compounds at parts-per-trillion. Does that mean that now the foods are unsafe for human consumption, simply because we now know that a carcinogenic compound is in the food at 50 ppt? Because I never heard of anybody ever getting cancer from eating broccoli.
I’m not trying to kick sand in your face, appeal to authority, or prove my manhood, simply I want people to deal with this issue in the most rational way possible.
btw: The fellow you pronged was right. Consumers flush down the drain into the Mississippi watershed much, much higher levels of chemicals than BP dumped into the Gulf.