[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Sharks and Turtles Dealing with Chemical Nightmare We have all read the reports in the media about the United States Coast Guard granting nearly every request from BP to use chemical dispersants on the leaking oil. But, how much do we know about what the dispersant used, Corexit 9500, is or what effects will it have on marine life that comes into contact with it. Corexit 9500 is made by Nalco Holding Company, which is associated with the two companies that have created the two worst oil spills in U.S. History, namely B.P. and Exxon. The chemical replaced Corexit 9527, which was deemed “to toxic” to use on marine environments. That makes Corexit 9500 sound safer to use. However, we’ve been doing our homework and what we have found is extremely disturbing. Toxic Research of Corexit 9500 On August 6th, 2010, the Gulf Specimen Lab received a call about a young Kemp Ridley Sea Turtle that was at a nearby beach. The caller stated the animal was in “bad shape,” but what the responders found was shocking — the turtle was in such bad shape that it died within hours of their arrival. This is the most endangered turtle in the world, and the combination of oil and Corexit 9500 has more or less “dissolved” much of this animal. For the full Facebook posting with photos (graphic), point your browsers to: www.facebook.com/note.php...873415946368&id=591026380 This is only one of the latest victims that we’ve seen succumb to the effects of oil and Corexit 9500 in the past few weeks. During that few weeks, BP has been spinning the media trying to convince the public that there is “No Skimmable Oil on the Surface” and that fish in the Gulf of Mexico are “Safe for Consumption”. However, it appears that is very much not the case. The marine life in the Gulf of Mexico are dying slow and painful deaths. We know this because we’re seeing it happen on a daily basis with photographs of marine wildlife from the effected area showing up on social networking sites. We also know this because we found the research that proves it! The journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety published a peer-reviewed paper in 1996 of a comparison study of marine life exposed to Corexit 9500 that clearly states that Corexit 9500 is not safer than its predecessor (Corexit 9527), but in fact – it’s probably worse. The only difference that the comparison study found between the two chemicals is that Corexit 9500 “delayed” death by a few days after initial exposure. Therefore, instead of just immediately killing the animals at exposure, it caused the animals to suffer several days before they finally succumbed to the toxic chemical. Excerpt: “[Corexit] 9500 data indicated substantially more delayed mortality; the majority of test animals survived up to 2–3 days after initial exposure before dying (Fig. 6). This may be reflective of differences in the formulation of 9500, but without specific constituent information, which is proprietary and unavailable, no specific conclusions can be drawn.” The full paper can be downloaded here: www.sharkfreeflorida.com/corexit-9500.pdf Material Safety Data Sheet Anyone who has ever worked around chemicals in the United States is familiar with an MSDS. It’s a form, required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with data regarding the properties of a particular substance. The MSDS told us what we pretty much already knew – that Corexit 9500 is toxic. Here is an excerpt from the MSDS: Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the following indicated EPA hazard categories: _X_ Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard ___ Delayed (Chronic) Health Hazard ___ Fire Hazard ___Sudden Release of Pressure Hazard ___ Reactive Hazard Apparently, OSHA gave Corexit 9500 a “Low” risk rating to the environment. However, the MSDS opens with an “Emergency Overview” that states: WARNING Combustible. Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition – No smoking. Keep container tightly closed. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Avoid breathing vapor. Use with adequate ventilation. In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of soap and water. Wear suitable protective clothing. Does this sound like a chemical that you would feel comfortable swimming in? Obviously based on the aforementioned study, it would like cause you a slow and painful death over 2-3 days after you were heavily exposed to it. The full MSDS can be obtained here: www.sharkfreeflorida.com/corexit_9500_msds.pdf Sharks Shark populations worldwide have been on a rapid decline since 1950. Some species, including many found in the Gulf of Mexico have declined in population by as much as 99 percent (source: Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico [PDF]). With sharks facing so many threats today such as shark fining and overfishing, having to swim in a pool of toxic chemicals is the last thing that they need. Many of these sharks will succumb to Corexit 9500 and after dying a slow and painful death over 48 to 72 hours, their bodies will sink to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, we will never know the exact death toll. But, we do know that it’s going to be massive! Florida needs an extensive set of laws now to fully protect sharks within the state. But, this isn’t just Florida’s problem – it’s America’s problem. However, Florida has several species of shark within its waters and while we can assume that many of the sharks on Florida’s gulf coast will be exposed and die from the oil and dispersant combination, the sharks that remain as well as sharks along Florida’s Atlantic Coast should be fully protected to help ensure the species survival.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Turtles are cute but what shark is a shark anyway?
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||