Corexit was a big news topic at the beginning of this tragic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico but it seems little talked about now.
There is no question that BP's calculation in its decision to use so much of this toxic chemical prioritizes the cosmetics of the situation over ecological impact and the health of cleanup crews. So much more important is PR that BP has not just refused to provide respirators to displaced fisherman labour crews, they threaten them with firing if they use their own!.
They don't care where the oil-dispersant mixture goes or what it harms as long as it is all happening below the surface, away from the shorelines. Not only is BP not looking, nor the government, but both are colluding to prevent scientists from doing any independent monitoring. Out of sight also potentially reduces their per gallon fine for this spill by billions of dollars. As if the US government, run by the corporations for the corporations, would ever actually levy such a penalty.
How's that jackboot on the throat feeling, Tony Hayward? Right. It's enough to drive one to the Tea Party (aka insane).
From Kent Pitman's Open Salon blog I came across the video below and some interesting discussion of Corexit's make up and properties.
But at least they decided to rename the MMS to something with the word "enforcement" in it. Hopefully that kind of high visibility clue will penetrate even the most drug-addled brain.
What was that Shakespear quote again...? "A toxic soup by any other name would smell as foul," that was it!
- Log in to post comments
Never fear NOAA is here
Apparently this whole mess has had no bearing on the marine life in the gulf.
"The lack of fish deaths and contaminations is not a surprise to Smith, who said fish just swim out of the way when they see something dangerous in the water."
I never realised it was so simple did you Coby? If you cant trust NOAA then who can you trust?
Amazing, another old post revisited by crakar and he still won't revisit this argument http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/sea-level-in-arctic-is-fa…
He doesn't even seem to want to acknowledge my existence at the moment
Oh, and crakar:
"no bearing on the marine life in the gulf"
"marine life" does not exclusively mean fish.
"just swim out of the way"
And those organisms that can't swim?
"when they see something dangerous"
And when they can't see, or identify something dangerous.
Be careful of sweeping statements crakar, it makes you look dumb.
(Perhaps now I've implied an insult crakar may pay me attention )
He [Crakar] doesn't even seem to want to acknowledge my existence at the moment
Sorry Chris, but I've kind of tied him up with plagiarism/CO2 residence time. Didn't mean to hog his attentions, but you'll get yours in time; my money is on "fucking pom" and "Limey bastard" as being key talking points.
Our fellow contributor is a tortured soul whom I once thought had limitless energy for self-deception and an equally limitless passion for publicizing it, but alas he's as finite as the rest of us. Give him time.
Things that can't move? Like barnacles and sponges maybe.
So, what is your (collective) point here?
Stop using oil and disregard NOAA?
I never realised it was so simple did you Coby? If you cant trust NOAA then who can you trust? -- Crakar
So, what is your (collective) point here . . . Stop using oil and disregard NOAA? --Paul in MI
I cannot speak for the collective, but in general, *whatever* the exact impact of the BP spill we should begin to significantly *reduce* oil consumption and pay very, very close attention to NOAA.
What then is your point? Use oil at current levels and take everything NOAA says at face value? Because I assure you the former does not follow from the latter.
Its not about oil spills, but here's a flier from NOAA on 'climate literacy':
A few highlights from the summary:
Over the 21st century, climate scientists expect Earthâs temperature to continue increasing, very likely more than it did during the 20th century. Two anticipated results are rising global sea level and increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts, and floods. These changes will affect almost every aspect of human society, including economic prosperity, human and environmental health, and national security.
â¢ Scientific observations and climate model results indicate that human activities are now the primary cause of most of the ongoing increase in Earthâs globally averaged surface temperature.
â¢ Climate change will bring economic and environmental challenges as well as opportunities . . .
. . .Although peer review does not guarantee that any particular published result is valid, it does provide a high assurance that the work has been carefully vetted for accuracy by informed experts prior to publication. The overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers about global climate change acknowledge that human activities are substantially contributing factors . . .
. . . Climate model projections suggest that negative effects of climate change will significantly outweigh positive ones. The nationâs ability to prepare for and adapt to new conditions may be exceeded as the rate of climate change increases . . .
. . . Changes in our economy and infrastructure as well as *individual attitudes, societal values, and government policies* [emphasis added for Paul's benefit] will be required to alter the current trajectory of climate's impact on human lives . . .
. . . Humans may be able to mitigate climate change or lessen its severity by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations through processes that move carbon out of the atmosphere or reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . .
. . . The most immediate strategy is conservation of oil, gas, and coal, which we rely on as fuels for most of our transportation, heating, cooling, agriculture, and electricity.
[Paul, do recall once saying that "you can't conserve your way out of a problem"?]
And so forth, but I imagine you get the picture.
So, by no means do I want you ignoring NOAA, Paul! As Crakar might put it, "If you can't trust NOAA who can you trust?"
Conservation observation is still correct and always will be. And doubly true for climate change prevention or remediation.
How would you significantly reduce consumption immediately?
Sounds like you have an unknown idea for an explosive new business!
Btw, who do you like for NV senator Skip?
However, at the moment my constituency is not well mobilized so I pinched my nose and voted for Harry Reid in early voting.
I'm a big believer in forthright campaign slogans, and this was one I openly advocated:
"Harry Reid is a prick."
"But he's our prick."
How would you significantly reduce consumption immediately?
Its not possible. But you can, as I said *begin*. We've talked this to death, Paul. The last we exchanged you were convinced that fuel taxes kill people. But my solution would be to gradually raise fossil fuel taxes until alternatives become viable and eventually more economical.
Again, it *has to happen anyway*, someday. There's no avoiding it. Fossils will be gone; its a mathematical certainty. If you believe that people who come after us can survive without them, then we can too.
We agree on everything except the taxes issue.
And you're right, it's been talked to death.
My point was that NOAA are full of shit, this oil spill/leak will have detrimental effects that will last for generations.
You yanks and maybe poms really dont understand sarcasm do you.