WHY WOULD KERRY KENNEDY LIE ABOUT THE GULF OIL SPILL DISPERSANTS?

CNN’s Campbell Brown conducted an interview with Kerry Kennedy of the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights after Ms. Kennedy’s visit to the Gulf of Mexico where she discusses the headaches, burning eyes, sore throats, and nausea she and her team experienced, and the illness that local residents are experiencing.

Unfortunately, however, Ms. Kennedy chose to misrepresent specific facts during this interview. First, let’s hear what she had to say:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/06/08/cb.dangers.of.dispersants.cnn

The startling dishonesty presented by Ms. Kennedy requires serious examination so that we can begin to question why false information is being given to the American people.

Ms. Kennedy is wrong on two very important points. 1) She says BP will not reveal the names of the chemicals being used, and 2) BP made the decision to use those chemical dispersants. Let’s take a closer look.

Campbell Brown asks, “We don’t even really know what is in this dispersant; BP is keeping a lot of information proprietary. What have you heard from healthcare workers…?”

Ms. Kennedy states, “People are getting sick and the patients, the healthcare providers cannot properly diagnose what the problems are because BP will not give them the names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants.”

From our Government’s EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#list), we can see the listed names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants.

577-11-7 Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)

*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is not included in the composition of COREXIT 9500.

Campbell Brown then asks Ms. Kennedy, “Do you think the administration is doing enough to help people get through this?”

Ms. Kennedy says, “Well I think the administration frankly has been incredible in responding to this crisis, but this is BP’s crisis and BP has had a lot of control of the decision making particularly in those first few weeks and they made the decision to use all those dispersants without the consent of the people who are really going to be impacted, no.”

Take another look at the EPA’s website. Only our Government can authorize the use of those or any other chemicals. The EPA has even updated their webpage to reflect their direction to BP to reduce the amount of dispersant they’re using, and Ms. Kennedy certainly knows that only our Government can authorize and direct the use of the chemicals, not BP.

What are the tradeoff considerations being weighed regarding the impact of fish and wildlife when making decisions about the subsea use of dispersants?

Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil. When considering the use of a dispersant in the deep ocean, the federal government weighs the effectiveness of the dispersant in breaking down the oil at such depths, the benefits of preventing the oil from rising to the surface and eventually hitting the shore where it is likely to do significant damage to birds, wetlands and aquatic life, and the long term impacts of the dispersant mixed with oil in deeper waters. We have a monitoring and sampling plan in place to track the movement of the oil and we reserve the right to stop the use of these dispersants at any time based on the results.

Does EPA make a determination on the toxicity of dispersants before they are approved?

EPA requires toxicology tests and reports for all dispersants that are approved on the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule, the authorized list of dispersants. All determinations regarding the specific application or use of a dispersant are made by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator in charge of the response.

The authorization given to BP to use the dispersant on oil present on the surface of the water included specific conditions to ensure the protection of the environment and the health of residents in affected areas. At this time, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive requiring BP to decrease overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. The Unified Command will continue to monitor for the effects of this dispersant on the environment and we reserve the right to discontinue its use.

The Coast Guard and EPA have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak.

While dispersants have been used in previous oil spills, this is the largest application of dispersants at an oil spill response in the United States. Since the spill occurred, EPA and its federal partners have closely monitored any potential impacts of the dispersant including air quality monitoring by both planes and through mobile and fixed locations. Air sampling is geared toward looking for significant increases in airborne (volatile) chemicals.

Although Ms. Kennedy correctly states, from her own direct experience in the Gulf, the symptoms and illness that is resulting from the use of the Corexit dispersants, why is she leading viewers to believe that BP, a British company working in our Federal waters, controlled by our Federal Government… that BP makes the decision to use whatever chemicals they choose, and that BP refuses to tell healthcare providers the chemical content of those dispersants?

According to our Government, what Ms. Kennedy is saying is blatantly false. So we’ll just need to look deeper into these Corexit dispersants.

JoAnne Morreti and her research team discovered some interesting facts about the money flow and individuals who stand to benefit greatly from our Government’s selection and use of the Corexit dispersants. Also note the use of Corexit is banned in Britain.

http://www.blogster.com/joannemor/bombshell-expose-the-real-reason-the-oil-still-flows-into-the-gulf-of-mexico

There is a company called NALCO. They make water purification systems and chemical dispersants.

NALCO is based in Chicago with subsidiaries in Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia.

NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education.

If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.

Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything).

The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water’s surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe.

NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?)

There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise.”

President Obama owes the American people answers regarding why he authorized the use of Corexit, and why he has imposed a media blackout in the Gulf of Mexico.

President Obama states that “BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.”

Obama: Gov’t in Charge of Oil Disaster Response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNOi04R8mCY

Gulf Oil Spill – BP Media Blackout Of New Orleans News Crew: (was that ordered by BP or President Obama?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdrzqwk41pU

Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America, Gulf of Mexico: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlC7gvvJZw

Surf On Pensacola Beach Boiling Like Acid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO193f8xAls

We should all be asking the President about this, and certainly asking Kerry Kennedy why she would make false statements regarding the largest environmental disaster our country has ever faced.

"Take another look at the EPA’s website. Only our Government can authorize the use of those or any other chemicals. The EPA has even updated their webpage to reflect their direction to BP to reduce the amount of dispersant they’re using, and Ms. Kennedy certainly knows that only our Government can authorize and direct the use of the chemicals, not BP."

AND

"Although Ms. Kennedy correctly states, from her own direct experience in the Gulf, the symptoms and illness that is resulting from the use of the Corexit dispersants, why is she leading viewers to believe that BP, a British company working in our Federal waters, controlled by our Federal Government… that BP makes the decision to use whatever chemicals they choose, and that BP refuses to tell healthcare providers the chemical content of those dispersants?

"According to our Government, what Ms. Kennedy is saying is blatantly false."

"We should all be asking the President about this, and certainly asking Kerry Kennedy why she would make false statements regarding the largest environmental disaster our country has ever faced."

Gulf Oil Spill: BP Trying To Hide Millions of Gallons of Toxic Oil?
BP Embraces Exxon’s Toxic Dispersant, Ignores Safer Alternative

It has been confirmed that the dispersal agent being used by BP and the government is Corexit 9500, a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by Nalco Holding Company of Naperville, IL. Their stock took a sharp jump, up more than 18% at its highest point of the day today, after it was announced that their product is the one being used in the Gulf. Nalco’s CEO, Erik Frywald, expressed their commitment to “helping the people and environment of the Gulf Coast recover as rapidly as possible.” It may be that the best way to help would be to remove their product from the fray. Take a look at some of the facts about Corexit 9500:

A report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. entitled “Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview” states that “Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527, and Corexit 9580 have moderate toxicity to early life stages of fish, crustaceans and mollusks (LC50 or EC50 – 1.6 to 100 ppm*). It goes on to say that decreasing water temperatures in lab tests showed decreased toxicity, a lowered uptake of the dispersant. Unfortunately, we’re going to be seeing an increase in temperatures, not a decrease. Amongst the other caveats is that the study is species-specific, that other animals may be more severely affected, silver-sided fish amongst them.

Oil is toxic at 11 ppm while Corexit 9500 is toxic at only 2.61 ppm; Corexit 9500 is four times as toxic as the oil itself. Sure, a lot less of it is being introduced, but that’s still a flawed logical perspective, because it’s not a “lesser of two evils” scenario. BOTH are going into the ocean water.

The lesser of two evils seems to be a product called Dispersit, manufactured by Polychem, a division of U.S. Polychemical Corporation. In comparison, water-based Dispersit is toxic at 7.9-8.2 ppm; Dispersit holds about one third of the toxicity that Corexit 9500 presents. Dispersit is a much less harmful water-based product which is both EPA approved and the U.S. Coast Guard’s NCP list. So why isn’t it being used?

We spoke with Bruce Gebhardt at Polychem Marine Products, asked him if Dispersit was being used in the Gulf Oil Spill situation. “Very little,” he replied. When asked why, the impression was that the government had used Corexit 9500 in the past, and was going with what they know — no matter how dangerous that might prove to be.

Dispersit has a demonstrated effectiveness of 100% on the lighter South Louisiana crude, and 40% on Pruhoe Bay’s heavier crude. Exxon’s Corexit 9500 is just 55% effective on SL and 55% effective on PB. On an average, Dispersit is 70% effective, and may prove 100% effective, while 9500 is an average of 50% effective, with a maximum effective use of just 55%. Corexit 9500 is a harsh petroleum-based solvent which is dangerous to people and sea life. Dispersit’s human health effect is “slight to none.” Whether or not a dispersal agent is a wise move, the question remaining unanswered is: Why is Corexit 9500 is being used at all, when the water-based Dispersit is available, markedly more effective and less toxic? Follow the money.

Dispersal of the oil does not eliminate it, nor does it decrease the toxicity of the oil. It just breaks it up into small particles, where it becomes less visible. It’s still there, spewing toxicity at an even greater rate (due to higher surface area.) But now it’s pretty much impossible to skim or trap or vacuum or even soak up at the shoreline, because most of it will never make it to the shoreline. Instead, that toxic crude oil AND the dispersant will be spread all over the ocean’s waters. This is why introducing such a product into the crude oil as it comes out from the pipe is a very bad idea for the ocean.

It may not be pretty, but if the oil makes it to the shore, it can be soaked up, cleaned up. To “disperse” it means it will NEVER be cleaned up. It will just stay out there, polluting and poisoning the ocean, her inhabitants, and all the food we take from it. It’s unwise to be using Corexit 9500 at all, but introducing it to the oil as it leaves the broken pipe is approaching madness. Mr. Gebhardt agrees that the oil should be contained, and what has been leaked should be allowed to come to shore where it can be removed from the ocean by less toxic means.

BP’s use of Corexit 9500 on the oil before it rises to the surface seems to be a deliberate attempt to mask the poison, to cover up that it continues to flow out from the ocean’s floor, while making it impossible to recover. In short, BP and Exxon want to spread the toxic oil throughout the oceans of the world, pollute everywhere, rather than allow it to be seen coming to shore where BP would have to pay for its containment and clean-up. It’s our job to keep them from getting away with sweeping this ugly mess under the surface.

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.