THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW!.....................
Posted on 06/30/2010 1:04:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
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.
