BP Genocide?

Gulf of Mexico dead zone

The impact of the BP Oil spill, made much worse by the toxic dispersal agent Corexit 9500 -  originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco Holding Company, which is 11 times more toxic than oil - is continuing to destroy lives, at a greater rate than before, yet, we hear almost nothing about it from the mainstream media.

According to four university studies, 79% of the oil is still there; however, as much of a problem as that poses, it's the toxic chemical dispersant  that is destroying the physical health of countless Gulf residents, not to mention, non Gulf residents.

People are sick...very, very sick.  Some have even died.  Eyewitness and personal accounts of scabs, lesions, skin rashes, and internal bleeding from every orifice including coughing up blood, nose bleeds, and rectal bleeding are reported all throughout the Gulf region. Because Corexit literally destroys red blood cells. The surfactants, which are the primary ingredient in Corexit destroy cell membranes.

"Oil rain"

Evaporation proceeds more quickly at higher temperatures. So, unlike the frigid water temperatures that the Exxon Valdez tanker dumped 11 million gallons of crude, the much warmer Gulf of Mexico waters will allow the “phase transition” of liquid to a gaseous state where it is then absorbed into clouds, and then released as “toxic rain”, potentially upon all of Eastern North America.

NASA conducted studies of the atmosphere and found a millimeter of oil over the Gulf, something they had never seen before. Robert Naman, president of Act Laboratory Inc in Mobile, AL, is one of the many people testing swimming pools and finding Corexit 957. Swimmers are developing rashes, vomiting, diarrea, low-grade fevers, and other flu-like symptoms as Corexit goes right through skin.

Barbara Schebler of Homosassa, Florida, just one hour north of Tampa, received word that test results on the water from her family’s swimming pool showed 50.3 ppm of 2-butoxyethanol, a marker for the dispersant Corexit 9527A used to break up and sink BP’s oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

From a scientist at the center of the spill:

The dispersant works as follows: The oil mixes with the dispersant and forms into tiny microdroplets of oil. These microdroplets have the same specific gravity as the water, so they just kind of hang suspended in the water. On the surface, this helps to break up the oil.

But in the deep sea, this prevents the oil from rising to the surface as quickly. The oil just hangs suspended in the depths, and is moved by the deep-sea currents.

In the history of oil spills before this one, dispersants had only been used on the surface. So this is the first time ever that dispersants have been used subsurface.
You also have to consider that in the deep sea there are hundreds of pounds of pressure per square inch; and it’s very cold, maybe one or two degrees Celsius; and there’s no sunlight to break down the dispersants—there is no sunlight below about 1,000 meters. All of those factors mean even more that the oil down there, when mixed with dispersant, will not rise to the surface for a long time.

Unfortunately we can’t measure the true impact of the spill if most of the oil is below the surface.

Are you saying that if the dispersants had not been applied at the well-head, then most or all of the oil would rise to the surface and these underwater plumes would basically not exist?

For the most part, yes. Or at least, the underwater plumes would be far shorter-lived since they would be rising to the surface.

If we had avoided the deep sea use of dispersants, and had simply let all of the oil rise to the surface or just below the surface, the situation would be much less catastrophic: We know how to deal with oil at the surface. We have precedent for that: We can skim it, we can burn it.

On the other hand, we cannot treat oil in the depths of the sea. There is no precedent. We don’t know how to do it. And as of now there is no plan to even try.

The trade-off was made between two fragile habitats: the marsh/freshwater habitat, and the deep-sea habitat of the Gulf of Mexico.

The marsh/freshwater habitat on the coast is very visible to the public, and of course a disaster there is also a PR disaster for the company that caused it.

The deep-sea habitat is largely unknown and certainly unseen. So in a sense, it is out of sight, out of mind. BP attempted to save the marsh/freshwater habitat at the expense of the deep-sea habitat.

But even with use of dispersants at the well-head, still a lot of oil is rising to the surface and is now making its way into the marsh/freshwater habitat—hence all the oil-covered fish, birds, and other creatures that are making the news.

So, instead of one habitat being saved at the expense of the other, effectively both habitats have been ruined.

Links:

Changing the end game

Gulf Chemist: BP Contractors Are Now Applying Toxic Dispersant - at Night and In an Uncontrolled Manner - Which BP Says It No Longer Uses

Statement from Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Attorney Stuart Smith


Gulf oil spill harming children's health

Gulf Coast Barefoot Doctors