At the Deepwater Horizon Joint Command press conference last week (June 30) on the toxic studies of Corexit, Paul Anastas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, answered a question from the Associated Press. He said clearly that there was no evidence of dispersants in the air. Here is the relevant portion of a recording of his remarks. (Listen at 1:50)
However, the EPA site which provides real time data for air quality monitoring on the Gulf Coast indicated that from May 18-June 6 "two chemicals found in dispersants" were detected at numerous GPS locations on the Gulf. The data for June 6 can be found here and the data for the other sites is available at the TAGA Route website. The chemicals detected were 2-butoxyethanol and 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-2-propanol.
We called the PIO at Deepwater Horizon and asked for a clarification on the discrepancy. Joint Unified Command consists of BP, the Coast Guard, NOAA, CDC, MMS, and the EPA.
Here is our email exchange.
Our question:
At a press conference on dispersants today, EPA representative Dr. Paul Anastas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, said "no dispersants" have been detected in the air. However, TAGA website says:EPA's TAGA bus monitors for two chemicals found in the COREXIT dispersants: EGBE (2-butoxyethanol), and dipropylene glycol mono butyl ether, which have the highest potential to get into the air in any significant amounts. EPA has been monitoring for these chemicals since May 18, 2010. The TAGA bus monitors are able to detect and measure these chemicals if they evaporate into the air. The TAGA bus has detected very low levels of these chemicals in the air, at a limited number of the locations sampled along the Gulf Coast. The levels found to date are well below those that are likely to cause health effects.
And comma delineated files show low levels of dispersants
Can you clarify for me?
The response:
I've been informed that the EPA question has to be worked through the EPA PIO in area command in New Orleans and then sent to Washington. I can pass it to them if you'd like for an answer?
We indicated that we would like to have the information forwarded to Washington, but as of this writing there has been no response. I want to make it very clear that the PIO has tried her best to get answers for us.
The public, as well as journalists, need timely answers to this question. Since dispersants have been detected in the air, toxicity levels must be addressed. We need scientific interpretation more than ever now that we are faced with an unprecedented release of oil and other chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico. The government's Deepwater Horizon Response website reports that more than more than 1.62 million gallons of dispersants have been used so far, including more than 1.03 million gallons of surface dispersant and more than 590,000 gallons of subsea dispersant.
The most important questions about the potential for long-term heath effects due to exposure to dispersants, such as cancer and nervous system disorders, have not been addressed, although the EPA says it is doing further testing. The problem is that a study of long-term health effects will take years, and the sea life and people living along the Gulf Coast do not have the luxury of time. The wellhead explosion at Mississippi Canyon block 252, took place on April 20; we still do not know much about air quality, and the information we are given is contradictory.
The public's inability to get answers is especially troubling, since more and more information is coming to light regarding the cozy relationship between the Government, the EPA and private industry involved in this catastrophe. The New York Times reported that Nalco Co., the manufacturer of Corexit 9500 hired a former EPA employee as a lobbyist.
llinois-based Nalco Co., manufacturer of dispersant Corexit 9500, recently hired Ramola Musante to run the company's Washington lobbying effort. Musante previously worked at both EPA and the Department of Energy. Nalco also recruited Ogilvy Government Relations, whose lobbyists include Drew Maloney, past assistant to former House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Texas).The chemical company brought on those lobbyists in March and April to talk to lawmakers about potential environmental regulations. But Nalco now faces a host of new concerns because of its tie to the oil spill cleanup.
According to Source Watch, Ogilvy Government Relations and Ogilvy Public Relations are one and the same.
The firm was acquired by Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide for $60 million in 2005, and changed its name to Ogilvy Government Relations in early 2007. [1] According to O'Dwyer's PR Daily, the firm decided "to switch its name as the Democrats take control of Congress," adding that "the Republican PR lobbying firm" had "recently made inroads with Democrats as evidence by the December hire of Moses Mercado (former deputy executive director of the Democratic National Committee) and ex-Louisiana Congressman Chris John.
This provides a stunning connection, since Ogilvy Public Relations is the same PR firm that represents BP and also has the Coast Guard Media Relations person, Petty Officer Rachel Polish, employed as a Vice-President of the company. See Coast Guard Media Liaison Works for BP PR Firm.
Rawstory reported yesterday (June 5) that the Coast Guard has been involved in spraying Corexit and that it has traveled inland, an allegation that is supported by the TAGA route monitoring.
A marine biologist working with a group of environmentalists to save sea turtles claims the U.S. Coast Guard is involved in spraying a toxic chemical dispersant over the Gulf of Mexico; and he says it has already traveled inland. Pincetich, a marine biologist and toxicologist who works with the Sea Turtle Restoration Project, was speaking to a group of activists who call themselves Project Gulf Impact.
In fact, two days after the press conference announcing the test results on dispersants, "Unified Command" issued a press release directing readers to the CDC website that recommends use of respirators for workers exposed to oil and dispersants.
A summary of studies about the human health effects associated with selected oil tanker disasters can be found in Appendix A. These studies may underestimate the health effects associated with the Deepwater Horizon Response activities since the magnitude and duration of the Response is unprecedented. In addition, there is an incomplete understanding about the human health toxicity associated with the use of large amounts of dispersant, about the toxicity of the mixed exposure to large amounts of crude oil, dispersants and combustion products together and the cumulative effect of such exposures occurring over a long duration.
So, dispersants are clearly present in the air, both over sea and land. If Unified Command is suggesting that oil spill responders might want to reconsider using respirators, why have we been told by the EPA, at a press conference, that there are no dispersants in the air?
Could it be the answer lies in the deep connections between the Coast Guard, the EPA, BP, government lobbyists, and the manufacturer of Corexit?
Follow Georgianne Nienaber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nienaber
Alison Rose Levy: Your New BFF, the Chemical Industry
The SCC says we need "Public safety information for all chemicals, and prompt action to phase out the most dangerous chemicals." Our BFF only wants to studying a handful of those chemicals.
Per Georgianne's article, "The government's Deepwater Horizon Response website reports that more than 1.62 million gallons of dispersants have been used so far, including more than 1.03 million gallons of surface dispersant and more than 590,000 gallons of subsea dispersant."
The Unified Command (includes EPA) is recommending the use of RESPIRATORS for workers exposed to oil and COREXIT dispersants.
Nalco's MSDS sheet for COREXIT states "DO NOT CONTAMINATE SURFACE WATER".
READ: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9500A_MSDS.539287.pdf
The European Union has BANNED Corexit dispersant.
The EPA designates 2-butoxyethanol, the active ingredient in COREXIT as being a "FETAL TOXIN" and human health hazard (per Riki Ott's book, "Not One Drop").
And I do NOT use Windex or other "commercial and industrial cleaning solutions" precisely for the reason that 2-butoxyethanol IS HARMFUL.
So allow ME to yell "FIRE!!!!!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/open-web-platform-for-gul_b_640890.html
Thank you for this information and continued updates on the spraying of the dispersants, who is spraying them and what it is doing to people and wildlife.
Knowledge is power.
We all need to learn and face the truth of what is happening in the Gulf.
I think the Gulf is under "martial law" where anyone coming within 65 feet of The Coast Guard's barriers will be FINED and/or face IMPRISONMENT.
The petroleum that is STILL gushing into the Gulf is not bad enough, but the TOXIC dispersants are further threatening people and wildlife.
The behavior on the part of this President and Congress who are in collusion with BP is INTOLERABLE.
There can be no reasonable excuse, promise or scapegoating to make the complete and WILLFUL negligence on the part of the federal government tolerable.
These ELITISTS not only refuse to provide help for the people and animals, but are WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY COVERING UP and thwarting every attempt made by the local governments to stop the oil from further decimating the beaches, marshes, estuaries and threatening ALL life.
ACTION must be taken and the only threat to this DEM Congress and President are LOSING THEIR POWER.
We need to send the message that THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LOST THEIR BASE.
They do not fear a third party but they do fear REPUBLICANS so I will be VOTING REPUBLICAN starting with the November elections.
It's the only action I can take without being arrested or fined.
Please tell me what I can do to help. I do not live in the Gulf Coast States but I want to do whatever I can to help stop the spraying of the dispersants. I am very concerned about the obvious effects on people and wildlife.
Thank you.
In further futile efforts to ReBrand their Failing Message, BP Public Relations has erased any reference to the cause of this ongoing disaster from their Product Display Venue: their website is now named RestorTheGulf. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What? Did the Well Stop Gushing?
BP Spokesman Thad Allen, aka: 'Thad The Impaler', 'Thaddy Boy', 'BPunk', 'Spinner-bait', disgraced former Commander of our now Unbelievable BP/US Coast Guard, announced the Product Roll-out at a much heralded presser.
http://bit.ly/9LhaF9
In the meantime BP PR Proper BPPRP has ramped up the Expensive Flash Advertising in Every Online News Outlet On The Gulf --particularly Nola.com. You see that goddamn Oil Flower everywhere! Hell, we even found their phone number and logo scratched into every bathroom stall in the French Quarters. Call'em and you get someone named "Big Mouth".
As only idiots' wind blows from a ruptured well, now we must endure BP Unified Command BPUC working the comments sections of journalists with Defensive Blogging Ops.
http://bit.ly/bhvA6e
As with any unstoppable ubiquitous pestilence, these Fakir Anti- Twitters of the Apocalypse buzz our ears like the breath of demons, the desolate sound of bloodthirsty horseflies on a hot Texas highway.
Thanks youz,
from the back hand path,
Editilla~New Orleans Ladder
http://noladder.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately the statements of the government PR staff denying the health effects sounds like a replay of the government's behavior following 911 when the USEPA told first responders, inhabitants and people who work in lower Manhattan that the air was safe to breathe, while in truth it contained carcinogens and chemicals responsible for other illnesses. The truth only came out due to the efforts of intrepid individuals, members of the media, first responders and their families, and the victims and families of workers and others who fell ill as a result of the toxins released by the pile. Therefore, it is imperative that you and others continue your efforts to report the truth about what is happening in the Gulf to enable people who reside there to protect themselves and those of us who don't live there to know so that we too will have the tools to question the government about what is happening in the event that disaster strikes.
This is how they register the products that might be involved in the cleanup (note the disclaimer on the first page): http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/ncp/schedule.pdf
"One dispersant that was used during the Exxon Valdez cleanup is Exxon's Corexit 9527, which contains an OSHA human health hazard called 2-butoxyethanol... How is this allowed? The EPA maintains a schedule of chemical products for use in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The EPA only screens products for effects on animals and the environment--not humans. Yet, it's not just the environment that's at risk when chemical products are used--it's spill responders and the public in places where drinking water or land may become contaminated. Evidence of sick workers from the Exxon Valdez cleanup suggests it's time to include effects on humans in product assessment (Ott 2005). There are no guarantees that the products are safe for the environment either (Attachment 2: Nichols 2001). Products are designed for specific purposes; however, the EPA admits its system is rife with abuse: "misuse . . . may cause further harm to the environment than the oil alone" (ibid., 1481)."
http://bit.ly/dAtojR
http://www.nalco.com/aboutnalco/united-states.htm
Their corporate offices are actually in the proximity of where I live.
I definitely do not use Windex, as a commenter pointed out 2-Butoxyethanol is in, and no chemicals.
Baking soda and water and white vinegar do the job for house-cleaning and very well.
"2-Butoxyethanol is frequently found in popular cleaning products.[1][2] It provides cleaning power and the characteristic odor of Windex and other glass cleaners. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions, such as Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner."
Why not get an answer from the EPA before shouting "Fire!"
Not nice. And people will be subject to chronic exposure. You have no idea what the health effects would be.
I love windex for cleaning windows, just like I like oil in my car engine...but that don't mean its safe to dump thousands of gallons of either into the environment. Your argument is a "Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization"...look that one up wikipedia.
In case you cant find it...here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
I agree with all your posts. I would definitely, however, recommend using white vinegar and water to clean windows.
I slowly but surely have eliminated all harmful chemicals in my house-cleaning and personal use.
Baking soda, white vinegar and water, do it all safely, and much more effectively.