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

NoisyRoom.net ^ | 6-26-2010 | AJ

[Whenifhow]

"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."

[Chi-townChief]

With a name like Kerry Kennedy, you would expect zero credibility from her.

[allmost]

bump.

[toldyou]

So far, 400 people have sought medical care for upper or lower respiratory problems, headaches, nausea, and eye irritation after trips to Escambia County beaches, Lanza said.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20100626/NEWS01/6260322/Oil-spill-Is-Gulf-safe-for-swimming-

[La Lydia]

We are supposed to believe one word that woman says?

[toldyou]

Video taken from cockpit of C-130 Spraying Corexit on BP oil spill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDQPSBz9gE&feature=related

[Tax-chick]

Why would Kerry Kennedy lie? Because that’s what Kennedys do ... it’s in their genes.

[justa-hairyape]

Those Oil rains would be nasty, but how do we know that was not just oil already on the ground locally ? When it rains out here in So Cal after a drought, the roads are very slick due to the oils on the road being lifted above the rain water. Now it rains a lot in Louisiana so there should be less rain lifted oil on the roads ?

[Whenifhow]

The point is that the media has been given this false information to report. They have not investigated.

I would venture a guess that the government is feeding the media frenzy for information.
Example:

Mika Admits: I’m ‘Working With The White House’ On Oil Spill Talking Points
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2538641/posts

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd2GkUDk8z

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/06/21/mika-admits-im-working-white-house-oil-spill-talking-points

[allmost]

The basic principle is to get the oil to mix with water. It then ‘disperses’ throughout.

[fight_truth_decay]

You raise excellent questions.

The Chevron Pit Oct 2009 -Also starring Kerry Kennedy and her account of her visit to the Ecuadorian rain forest where Texaco (now Chevron)was said to have intentionally dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste and abandoned over 900 unlined waste pits while operating a large oil concession from 1964 to 1990.

Kennedy, a mother of three is a longtime human rights advocate.

[Whenifhow]

Video taken from cockpit of C-130 Spraying Corexit on BP oil spill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDQPSBz9gE&feature=related
>>>>>>>>

More Confirmation of Neurotoxin spraying – Gassed in the Gulf
http://theintelhub.com/2010/06/15/more-confirmation-of-neurotoxin-spraying-gassed-in-the-gulf/

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "....Mexico where she discusses the headaches, burning eyes, sore throats, and nausea she and her team experienced..."

Response: These "symptoms" will be experienced by all individuals making a claim against BP. Testimony as to experiencing the "symptoms", supported by manufactured "expert" testimony increases the value of the claim. The number of those just starting to "turn their lives around" when the spill occurred will be legion. Look for a lot of new Mercedes being driven in the gulf states.

[Eye of Unk]

http://www.protecttheocean.com/gulf-oil-spill-bp/

[Eye of Unk]

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.

[Whenifhow]

http://www.protecttheocean.com/gulf-oil-spill-bp/
Good article...thanks. Here is another article.

Nalco linked to Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, among others

http://theintelhub.com/2010/06/17/nalco-linked-to-goldman-sachs-and-citigroup-among-others/

[DUMBGRUNT]

Ms Kerry Kennedy Cuomo may want to look at the MSDS.
NOTE: Health=1/ Slight

http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
PRODUCT NAME : COREXIT® 9500
APPLICATION : OIL SPILL DISPERSANT

NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING
HEALTH : 1 / 1 FLAMMABILITY : 1 / 1 INSTABILITY : 0 / 0 OTHER :
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme
2.

[Whenifhow]

http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
PRODUCT NAME : COREXIT® 9500
APPLICATION : OIL SPILL DISPERSANT
***

Excellent information! The warning is significant!

[DUMBGRUNT]

msds joy dishwashing liquid

http://www.fsafood.com/msds/vault/003/003469.pdf

Perfumes contained within the products covered by this MSDS comply with appropriate IFRA guidance.
P&G Hazard Rating: Health: 1 4=EXTREME
Flammability: 1 3=HIGH
Reactivity: 0 2=MODERATE
1=SLIGHT
0=NOT SIGNIFICA

[TigersEye]

BP's response to EPA's dispersant directive