Posted on 06/30/2010 1:04:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The US Environmental Protection Agency released peer reviewed results from the first round of its own independent toxicity testing on eight oil dispersants. EPA conducted testing to ensure that decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico continue to be grounded in the best available science.
EPA's results indicated that none of the eight dispersants tested, including the product in use in the Gulf, displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity. While the dispersant products alone – not mixed with oil - have roughly the same impact on aquatic life, JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 were generally less toxic to small fish and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were least toxic to mysid shrimp. While this is important information to have, additional testing is needed to further inform the use of dispersants.
"EPA is performing independent tests to determine the potential impacts of various dispersants. We will continue to conduct additional research before providing a final recommendation," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "We want to ensure that every tool is available to mitigate the impact of the BP spill and protect our fragile wetlands. But we continue to direct BP to use dispersants responsibly and in as limited an amount as possible."
EPA continues to carefully monitor BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf. Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil and can prevent some oil from impacting sensitive areas along the Gulf Coast. EPA believes BP should use as little dispersant as necessary and, on May 23, Administrator Jackson and then-Federal On-Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral Mary Landry directed BP to reduce dispersant usage by 75 percent from peak usage. EPA and the Coast Guard formalized that order in a directive to BP on May 26. Over the next month BP reduced dispersant use 68 percent from that peak.
Before directing BP to ramp down dispersant use, EPA directed BP to analyze potential alternative dispersants for toxicity and effectiveness. BP reported to EPA that they were unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500, the product currently in use. Following that, EPA began its own scientific testing of eight dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule (NCP-PS). Those dispersant products are: Dispersit SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, SAF-RON Gold, Sea Brat #4, Corexit 9500 A and JD 2000. These results represent the first stage of that effort.
EPA tested these eight products for endocrine disrupting activity and potential impacts on small fish and mysid shrimp. The testing found:
The next phase of EPA's testing will assess the acute toxicity of multiple concentrations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil alone and combinations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil with each of the eight dispersants for two test species.
fyi
Since the EPA is responsible for ecological health, then why haven’t these dispersants been tested already?
THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW!.....................
Well we know their testing is sensitive ...they found CO2 is a pollutant....so this is likely OK!!!
Of course they don't test effect on plants....which love CO2.
Well we know their testing is sensitive ...they found CO2 is a pollutant....so this is likely OK!!!
Of course they don't test effect on plants....which love CO2.
Whoops...don’t know how that happened.
I believe they were and this is just to show us that they’re doing something....AND PROBABLY BILLING BP some extraordinary amount.
Guess it works like the FDA.
Other countries incl. England and Canada have approved the stuff
None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.
None of the eight dispersants tested displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.
JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish
JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish
JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 proved to be the least toxic to small fish
Yes...I felt it needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated for some of the screamers out there...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Or is it best to do nothing....
Do you have link to the publication and data?
Was there insignificant "endocrine distrupting activity"?
Strange way to phrase this.
Got to run...be back later....working next door,...getting louder than I care for.
I think they have been, but at less concentrated levels (as would apply in surface use, rather than sub-sea injection). At least, that's what I recall reading over at The Oil Drum.
I thought that was strange too - and why did they only focus on “endocrine”, what about neurotoxicity and other things?
It is standard EPA wording.
There is no legalese wording such as “insignificant,” but only various definitions throughout the regulations stating things to the effect of “Biologically Significant” meaning
because of the higher potential or more lasting consequences of harm
So the findings of the EPA study and their wording indicate that there is not a higher potential or lasting consequences.
Which as difficult as it might sound for some folks here ...matches the company’s MSDS.
Despite your handwaving assurances,
one doubts that DNA intercalation effects,
long term, were done.
One doubts all systems were tested in human infants who
will now be exposed.
Given the coverup of regulations involved to this point,
I doubt there have been any serious definitive substantive
studies examining the full range of sequelae.
It is a bit interesting to see they are just starting to do tests on these eight dispersants. Our tax dollars at work./sarc
It was tested and approved years ago.
The concern is using it underwater and in such large quantities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
