Gulf Seafood Not Tested for Toxic Dispersants


By Rady Ananda

Anything coming from the Gulf of Mexico is being tested for contamination by oil, but not for contamination by chemical oil dispersants, reports the Palm Beach Post.

“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says a test for dispersants is in the works. Until then, officials are going by the ‘current science’ that dispersants have low potential for harm,” reports ProPublica.

Orwellian Newspeak aside, Corexit is four times more toxic than oil. On May 3rd, the environmental group, Protect the Oceans, reported that “oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61 ppm.” Bear in mind that both are going into the Gulf, and into the food chain.

The EPA designated one of the dispersants, Corexit 9527, a “chronic and acute health hazard” reports the New York Times. Mike Adams of Natural News had this to say:

“On the toxicity question, you could hardly find a more dangerous combination of poisons to dump into the Gulf of Mexico than what has been revealed in Corexit. The Corexit 9527 product … is made with 2-butoxyethanol, a highly toxic chemical that has long been linked to the health problems of cleanup crews who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill.

“A newer Corexit recipe dubbed the ‘9500 formula’ contains dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, a detergent chemical that’s also found in laxatives. What do you suppose happens to the marine ecosystem when fish and sea turtles ingest this chemical through their gills and skin? And just as importantly, what do you think happens to the human beings who are working around this chemical, breathing in its fumes and touching it with their skin?”

But the FDA denies the scientific notion of “biomagnification” — the tendency of certain chemicals to become concentrated as they move into and up the food chain, like from plankton to shrimp to human. Instead, the FDA asserts “there’s a difference between what [the dispersant] does to a living fish and any harm that it might have for a human consuming a fish that was in or near water with dispersant in it.”

When we learn that:

* BP shareholders dumped their stock before the Deepwater Horizon explosion (including BP CEO Tony Hayward and economy-wrecker, Goldman Sachs);

* BP had a prior explosion in February at this site;

* BP ignored the EPA stop-use order of these toxic dispersants;

* BP refused to provide respirators and threatened to fire workers who used their own respirators on the job;

* BP and the US government shut down the media, arresting journalists for photographing the evidence and denying flights over the area; and that

* British Petroleum is using a product in the Gulf of Mexico that has been banned in Britain for over ten years,

Then, it becomes more plausible that something else is going on. Are they trying to kill the ocean?  Us?  The following video presents these questions, pointing the finger at the private, foreign, international monetary/banking cartel. [Note that this video was uploaded on May 29, so some of the figures given are much less than today’s known figures (e.g. from half a million gallons to 1.8 million gallons of dispersant).]

Whatever the motivations behind the actions and inactions of responsible parties, whatever their plan or endgame, we are best served by choosing food that is known to be safe.

9 responses to “Gulf Seafood Not Tested for Toxic Dispersants

  1. Thanks for the credit, Rady. It’s true that Corexit is more dangerous than oil. It’s also true that Corexit hit the shores of Louisiana 2 days before the oil did. The dolphins and turtles which are showing up dead a the shoreline in huge numbers are not showing oil toxicity… but they’re dying of SOMETHING… and that’s just the corpses that get close enough to land to be found. The species washing up are largely an open ocean dolphin, so what makes it to the Gulf shores is likely just the tip of the iceberg, per se. THere are most certainly hundreds (if not thousands) more that don’t ever make it to shore. This is nothing short of a genocide.

    (What’s worse, that doesn’t even account for all the creatures being burned alive by BP in their “flaring” because they refuse to allow animal rescue groups to go get them before they ignite the surface oil!)

    Corexit was always a bad idea, but it became far worse when they went beyond its permitted use (in violation of the Clean Water Act of 1972) and started using it other than as prescribed by “infusing” the solvent into 133 atmospheres of pressure at nearly freezing temperatures as they did. There is no justification for the EPA’s choice to allow BP to use it in any way other than the recommended Notebook techniques of distribution. That was what got the ribbons of oil beneath the surface — streams of oil 10 miles long and a mile wide. That’s also the distribution which violated the Clean Water Act. It’s specifically illegal for the EPA to issue permit for Corexit to be used in this way; The CWA of 1972 specifically prohibits that permit from being issued! Lisa Jackson and the rest of the EPA have much to answer for in all of this as well.

    Protect The Ocean

    • Thanks for your comment, JT ~ it appears that corporations, enabled by their paid for governmental agencies, are waging war on the environment or mere profit.

      We people need to recognize that governmental agencies do not serve us; they serve corporate profits.

      We need to take matters into our hands — I have no idea how to stop the corporate beast but what it is doing is far worse than the Tragedy of the Commons.

      We need to rename it: Tragedy of the Corporations.

  2. Rady,

    A bit more light on the BP situation. The current president of Nalco (who makes/markets Corexit) sat on the board of BP at one time (and likely holds some shares.) Other ties include the president of Exxon, who shares board seats with Nalco, BP, and Blackstone. Blackstone owns SeaWorld, Six Flags, etc., and just happens to be 20% owned by Japanese investors. So why did BP use Corexit? They were buying the stuff at about $28 a gallon — from themselves, effectively, and their cronies.

    As to why it was used at all, that’s easy. Oil that lies below the surface, suspended, only costs them the lost crude. Oil that rises and shows up at the shores costs them to clean up, plus EPA fines of !000-4000 per barrel. They had huge motives to bury the crude.

    Protect The Ocean

  3. There’s testing done by a local Channel 5, showed Corexit at 16->200 PPM in clear waters and beaches. Might look at that video.


  4. Pingback: ‘Troubled Waters’ overcomes censor troubles; more must-see Ag films :

  5. Pingback: ‘Troubled Waters’ overcomes censor troubles; more must-see Ag films : NOVAKEO.COM – The Radically Alternative Webzine

  6. It may be time to revisit this subject. Toxicity continues to spread… and the 96 hour fatal rate at 2.6 ppm is now into several months. I’m not eating any shrimp that may have come from the Gulf… and a US Geological report states that all 33 major US freshwater rivers have unacceptably high levels of mercury in the fish living within them.

    We’ve been ignoring that some are fouling our beds. Time to take that to task, and hope it’s not already too late.

  7. Can I just say such a help to find someone who really understands just what they may be talking about on the internet. You actually get experience to bring a problem to light and allow it to critical. More people should learn it all and understand it all section of the story. I cant believe you’re not more popular as you clearly have the gift.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s